Muslims in NYC Planning to Build Second Mosque Near Ground Zero (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

The other day I heard a conservative talk show host, Mike Gallagher, complain that "there is no other country in the world that would allow this (the Mosque.)" He was apparently trying to point out how crazy we were.

I agree with him; I don't think another country would allow this. But doesn't that show how wonderful this country is? No other place reveres freedom of speech, and freedom of religion as much as we do. I am a firm believer in American exceptionalism; I think this is the greatest country on Earth, and I think the fact that we're going to allow a mosque to be built even here only proves that to be true. You might not like the people that are doing this, or their reason for doing it, perhaps, but you should celebrate that they can do it.

I have to add that I find it ironic that so many conservatives constantly complain that liberals don't believe in the greatness of America; yet, when they get upset about a certain issue (like this one or illegal immigration) they are quite willing to point to other countries as an example of how we should be behaving. Who cares if Russia wouldn't allow a mosque in this situation? Who cares if Mexico has tight southern borders, and is cruel to those who try to pass through them? We are not these countries, and we should be very proud of that.

 

[urbanhack]

I have to admit, I'm just being a poor sport about the whole thing. The muslims won that day.

Pathetic.

 

[timschochet]

The Anti-Defamation League has come out against the center. This depresses me, to say the least. Usually the ADL is on the right side of these sorts of issues. For them to adopt the populist viewpoint here is, IMO, a betrayal of the core of their beliefs.

 

[the moops]

In a matter of hours they killed more people than were killed in the crusades.

Umm. No.

 

[perry147]

The Anti-Defamation League has come out against the center. This depresses me, to say the least. Usually the ADL is on the right side of these sorts of issues. For them to adopt the populist viewpoint here is, IMO, a betrayal of the core of their beliefs.

Yea that is totally screwed up. Foxman needs to explain this in minute detail.

 

[Josie Maran]

The Anti-Defamation League has come out against the center. This depresses me, to say the least. Usually the ADL is on the right side of these sorts of issues. For them to adopt the populist viewpoint here is, IMO, a betrayal of the core of their beliefs.

Yea that is totally screwed up. Foxman needs to explain this in minute detail.

Indeed. From Jefrey Goldberg

If He Could, Bin Laden Would Bomb the Cordoba Initiative

Aug 3 2010, 11:00 AM ET

This seems like such an obvious point, but it is apparently not obvious to the many people who oppose the Cordoba Initiative's planned mosque in lower Manhattan, so let me state it as clearly as possible: The Cordoba Initiative, which is headed by an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an enemy of al Qaeda, no less than Rudolph Giuliani and the Anti-Defamation League are enemies of al Qaeda. Bin Laden would sooner dispatch a truck bomb to destroy the Cordoba Initiative's proposed community center than he would attack the ADL, for the simple reason that Osama's most dire enemies are Muslims. This is quantitatively true, of course -- al Qaeda and its ideological affiliates have murdered thousands of Muslims -- but it is ideologically true as well: al Qaeda's goal is the purification of Islam (that is to say, its extreme understanding of Islam) and apostates pose more of a threat to Bin Laden's understanding of Islam than do infidels.

I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of the mosque project are giving him what he wants.

Amazing how we keep giving them what they want.

 

[Hoart Petterson]

Any of you guys going to the Quran burning?

 

[Statorama]

Any of you guys going to the Quran burning?

Just when I think I've taken it to the highest level of crazy, someone has to top me.

 

[Casting Couch]

Mosque near 9/11 site likely to go ahead despite rightwing fury

Guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 August 2010 19.21 BST

A plan to build a mosque and a Muslim community centre within two blocks of Ground Zero cleared a major hurdle today amid an intensifying groundswell of opposition from rightwing pundits and politicians.

The $100m project would see a 13-storey centre, replete with prayer space, swimming pool and restaurant, rise in Park Place, just north of the World Trade Centre where al-Qaida terrorists struck on 11 September 2001.

Opponents turned to the Landmarks Commission of New York City, that has the power to order the preservation of historic buildings, in the hope that it would put a stop to the plans by blocking the demolition of the existing building on the site.

Today the commission unanimously declined to preserve the building, an 1850s Italianate structure that was damaged on 9/11 and has been disused ever since. It said there was nothing sufficiently distinguished about its design that earned it landmark status.

The decision removes an important possible barrier to the plans going ahead, though critics have vowed to continue their fight. A group of protesters were present at the commission vote, including one man carrying a banner that said: "No 9/11 victory mosque".

The plan for a Muslim centre is the brainchild of the Cordoba Initiative, a group set up after 9/11 to build bridges between moderate Islam and the West. Its name alludes to the Spanish city that was famous for its religious toleration under the Moors.

In recent weeks a slew of conservative figures have accused its organisers of insensitivity towards the families of the almost 3,000 people who died in the twin towers.

Last month Sarah Palin posted Tweets in which she called the proposed centre an unnecessary provocation that "stabs hearts … twin towers site is too raw, too real". Newt Gingrich, a leading Republican congressman in the 1990s, has characterised the project as an "assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate". He said it was "designed to undermine and destroy our civilisation".

Sally Regenhard, whose son Christian died in the twin towers, said the proposal showed an "extreme insensitivity to the feelings of 9/11 families. If you want to grow understanding between faiths you do not hurt people who were victimised on that site".

In an important intervention that caught several New York commentators by surprise, the Anti-Defamation League, a group that counters anti-Semitism and is dedicated to the fight against bigotry, also this week opposed the mosque as "counterproductive to the healing process".

New York's authorities have so far stood firm. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor, said in a recent radio interview: "If we are so afraid of something like this, what does it say about us? Democracy is stronger than this. You know, the ability to practise your religion was one of the real reasons America was founded."

Proponents point out that there has been an active mosque on a separate site within six blocks of Ground Zero for the past 30 years. The Cordoba Initiative has also promised that the mosque – which it prefers to call an inter-faith prayer space – will be welcoming to non-Muslim religions.

Scott Stringer, Manhattan's borough president, welcomed the Landmark Commission's ruling.

"A few individuals and groups are seeking to create a kind of hatred for their own political gain. The process has been manipulated by those trying to get headlines and score points," he said.

Elizabeth Berger, President of the Alliance for Downtown New York, said that "New Yorkers live the commitment to freedom and tolerance that makes America great every day. That's why the Statue of Liberty stands in our harbour. The idea of a new Muslim community centre and mosque in Lower Manhattan should be no exception."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/03/mosque-9-11-site

 

[Courtjester]

The Anti-Defamation League has come out against the center. This depresses me, to say the least. Usually the ADL is on the right side of these sorts of issues. For them to adopt the populist viewpoint here is, IMO, a betrayal of the core of their beliefs.

Tim, did you read their statement or are you just going on sound bites??Seems pretty well thought out to me:"We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths - to build community centers and houses of worship. We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel - and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001. The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values. These questions deserve a response, and we hope those backing the project will be transparent and forthcoming. But regardless of how they respond, the issue at stake is a broader one. Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right. "

 

[Dexter Manley]

The Anti-Defamation League has come out against the center. This depresses me, to say the least. Usually the ADL is on the right side of these sorts of issues. For them to adopt the populist viewpoint here is, IMO, a betrayal of the core of their beliefs.

Yea that is totally screwed up. Foxman needs to explain this in minute detail.

Indeed. From Jefrey Goldberg

If He Could, Bin Laden Would Bomb the Cordoba Initiative

Aug 3 2010, 11:00 AM ET

This seems like such an obvious point, but it is apparently not obvious to the many people who oppose the Cordoba Initiative's planned mosque in lower Manhattan, so let me state it as clearly as possible: The Cordoba Initiative, which is headed by an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an enemy of al Qaeda, no less than Rudolph Giuliani and the Anti-Defamation League are enemies of al Qaeda. Bin Laden would sooner dispatch a truck bomb to destroy the Cordoba Initiative's proposed community center than he would attack the ADL, for the simple reason that Osama's most dire enemies are Muslims. This is quantitatively true, of course -- al Qaeda and its ideological affiliates have murdered thousands of Muslims -- but it is ideologically true as well: al Qaeda's goal is the purification of Islam (that is to say, its extreme understanding of Islam) and apostates pose more of a threat to Bin Laden's understanding of Islam than do infidels.

I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of the mosque project are giving him what he wants.

Amazing how we keep giving them what they want.

Wow. So Stat and others in this thread are taking the same side on this issue as Bin Laden!

 

[Statorama]

Mosque near 9/11 site likely to go ahead despite rightwing fury

Was there ever a doubt?I really hate where this is all leading. There's going to be an attack on that mosque from radical islamic groups and the blame with fall on right-wingers and tea-partiers.It's almost inevitable at this point.

 

[perry147]

The Anti-Defamation League has come out against the center. This depresses me, to say the least. Usually the ADL is on the right side of these sorts of issues. For them to adopt the populist viewpoint here is, IMO, a betrayal of the core of their beliefs.

Yea that is totally screwed up. Foxman needs to explain this in minute detail.

Indeed. From Jefrey Goldberg

If He Could, Bin Laden Would Bomb the Cordoba Initiative

Aug 3 2010, 11:00 AM ET

This seems like such an obvious point, but it is apparently not obvious to the many people who oppose the Cordoba Initiative's planned mosque in lower Manhattan, so let me state it as clearly as possible: The Cordoba Initiative, which is headed by an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an enemy of al Qaeda, no less than Rudolph Giuliani and the Anti-Defamation League are enemies of al Qaeda. Bin Laden would sooner dispatch a truck bomb to destroy the Cordoba Initiative's proposed community center than he would attack the ADL, for the simple reason that Osama's most dire enemies are Muslims. This is quantitatively true, of course -- al Qaeda and its ideological affiliates have murdered thousands of Muslims -- but it is ideologically true as well: al Qaeda's goal is the purification of Islam (that is to say, its extreme understanding of Islam) and apostates pose more of a threat to Bin Laden's understanding of Islam than do infidels.

I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of the mosque project are giving him what he wants.

Amazing how we keep giving them what they want.

Wow. So Stat and others in this thread are taking the same side on this issue as Bin Laden!

American Taliban indeed.

 

[Josie Maran]

Mosque near 9/11 site likely to go ahead despite rightwing furyGuardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 August 2010 19.21 BST Elizabeth Berger, President of the Alliance for Downtown New York, said that "New Yorkers live the commitment to freedom and tolerance that makes America great every day. That's why the Statue of Liberty stands in our harbour. The idea of a new Muslim community centre and mosque in Lower Manhattan should be no exception."

 

[Statorama]

The Anti-Defamation League has come out against the center. This depresses me, to say the least. Usually the ADL is on the right side of these sorts of issues. For them to adopt the populist viewpoint here is, IMO, a betrayal of the core of their beliefs.

Yea that is totally screwed up. Foxman needs to explain this in minute detail.

Indeed. From Jefrey Goldberg

If He Could, Bin Laden Would Bomb the Cordoba Initiative

Aug 3 2010, 11:00 AM ET

This seems like such an obvious point, but it is apparently not obvious to the many people who oppose the Cordoba Initiative's planned mosque in lower Manhattan, so let me state it as clearly as possible: The Cordoba Initiative, which is headed by an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an enemy of al Qaeda, no less than Rudolph Giuliani and the Anti-Defamation League are enemies of al Qaeda. Bin Laden would sooner dispatch a truck bomb to destroy the Cordoba Initiative's proposed community center than he would attack the ADL, for the simple reason that Osama's most dire enemies are Muslims. This is quantitatively true, of course -- al Qaeda and its ideological affiliates have murdered thousands of Muslims -- but it is ideologically true as well: al Qaeda's goal is the purification of Islam (that is to say, its extreme understanding of Islam) and apostates pose more of a threat to Bin Laden's understanding of Islam than do infidels.

I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of the mosque project are giving him what he wants.

Amazing how we keep giving them what they want.

Wow. So Stat and others in this thread are taking the same side on this issue as Bin Laden!

I hear he likes rocky road ice cream too, and it's my favorite.

 

[Christo]

Any of you guys going to the Quran burning?

Just when I think I've taken it to the highest level of crazy, someone has to top me.

It's okay. You'll get 'em next time, Stat

 

[Courtjester]

I also thought the Wall Street Journal had a great article posted this morning Article

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The plan for a Muslim centre is the brainchild of the Cordoba Initiative, a group set up after 9/11 to build bridges between moderate Islam and the West. Its name alludes to the Spanish city that was famous for its religious toleration under the Moors.

“Cordoba,” means "Islamic rule in the West".

 

[perry147]

Yea that is totally screwed up. Foxman needs to explain this in minute detail.

Indeed. From Jefrey Goldberg

If He Could, Bin Laden Would Bomb the Cordoba Initiative

Aug 3 2010, 11:00 AM ET

This seems like such an obvious point, but it is apparently not obvious to the many people who oppose the Cordoba Initiative's planned mosque in lower Manhattan, so let me state it as clearly as possible: The Cordoba Initiative, which is headed by an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an enemy of al Qaeda, no less than Rudolph Giuliani and the Anti-Defamation League are enemies of al Qaeda. Bin Laden would sooner dispatch a truck bomb to destroy the Cordoba Initiative's proposed community center than he would attack the ADL, for the simple reason that Osama's most dire enemies are Muslims. This is quantitatively true, of course -- al Qaeda and its ideological affiliates have murdered thousands of Muslims -- but it is ideologically true as well: al Qaeda's goal is the purification of Islam (that is to say, its extreme understanding of Islam) and apostates pose more of a threat to Bin Laden's understanding of Islam than do infidels.

I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of the mosque project are giving him what he wants.

Amazing how we keep giving them what they want.

Wow. So Stat and others in this thread are taking the same side on this issue as Bin Laden!

I hear he likes rocky road ice cream too, and it's my favorite.

Yea but this is not about ice cream but about tolerance - specifically religious intolerance.

 

[Josie Maran]

The plan for a Muslim centre is the brainchild of the Cordoba Initiative, a group set up after 9/11 to build bridges between moderate Islam and the West. Its name alludes to the Spanish city that was famous for its religious toleration under the Moors.

“Cordoba,” means "Islamic rule in the West".

 

[ScottyFargo]

Mosque near 9/11 site likely to go ahead despite rightwing fury

Was there ever a doubt?I really hate where this is all leading. There's going to be an attack on that mosque from radical islamic groups and the blame with fall on right-wingers and tea-partiers.

It's almost inevitable at this point.

How can you say that? If you think Islamic fundamentalists aren't going to take credit for each act of terrorism that succeeds in America, you're way off base. You think people will automatically assume that it's right wing terrorists? Is that really the most likely group? I don't think so, and most people would expect an attack occuring outside of the site of 9/11 to be from the same people who already attacked there twice.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Mosque near 9/11 site likely to go ahead despite rightwing fury

Was there ever a doubt?I really hate where this is all leading. There's going to be an attack on that mosque from radical islamic groups and the blame with fall on right-wingers and tea-partiers.It's almost inevitable at this point.

 

[Casting Couch]

Mosque near 9/11 site likely to go ahead despite rightwing fury

Was there ever a doubt?I really hate where this is all leading. There's going to be an attack on that mosque from radical islamic groups and the blame with fall on right-wingers and tea-partiers.

It's almost inevitable at this point.

How can you say that? If you think Islamic fundamentalists aren't going to take credit for each act of terrorism that succeeds in America, you're way off base. You think people will automatically assume that it's right wing terrorists? Is that really the most likely group? I don't think so, and most people would expect an attack occuring outside of the site of 9/11 to be from the same people who already attacked there twice.

This is the classic thought process of those who live in a state of constant paranoid induced fear.

 

[Statorama]

Mosque near 9/11 site likely to go ahead despite rightwing fury

Was there ever a doubt?I really hate where this is all leading. There's going to be an attack on that mosque from radical islamic groups and the blame with fall on right-wingers and tea-partiers.

It's almost inevitable at this point.

How can you say that? If you think Islamic fundamentalists aren't going to take credit for each act of terrorism that succeeds in America, you're way off base. You think people will automatically assume that it's right wing terrorists? Is that really the most likely group? I don't think so, and most people would expect an attack occuring outside of the site of 9/11 to be from the same people who already attacked there twice.

You don't think they'd be more comfortable setting up one group and having us fight each other? I would imagine that the thought of a violent confrontation between Americans on the left and right would make an islamofacist drool.

 

[Statorama]

Mosque near 9/11 site likely to go ahead despite rightwing fury

Was there ever a doubt?I really hate where this is all leading. There's going to be an attack on that mosque from radical islamic groups and the blame with fall on right-wingers and tea-partiers.

It's almost inevitable at this point.

How can you say that? If you think Islamic fundamentalists aren't going to take credit for each act of terrorism that succeeds in America, you're way off base. You think people will automatically assume that it's right wing terrorists? Is that really the most likely group? I don't think so, and most people would expect an attack occuring outside of the site of 9/11 to be from the same people who already attacked there twice.

This is the classic thought process of those who live in a state of constant paranoid induced fear.

I've just watched too much "24"

 

[the moops]

Any of you guys going to the Quran burning?

Just when I think I've taken it to the highest level of crazy, someone has to top me.

In a matter of hours they killed more people than were killed in the crusades.

 

[Statorama]

Any of you guys going to the Quran burning?

Just when I think I've taken it to the highest level of crazy, someone has to top me.

In a matter of hours they killed more people than were killed in the crusades.

What, you think it was a tie?There's no way you know how many people died in the crusades. I can find a website with the actual names of the people that died on 9/11. Bazinga.

 

[the moops]

Any of you guys going to the Quran burning?

Just when I think I've taken it to the highest level of crazy, someone has to top me.

In a matter of hours they killed more people than were killed in the crusades.

What, you think it was a tie?There's no way you know how many people died in the crusades. I can find a website with the actual names of the people that died on 9/11. Bazinga.

You are back on top my friend.

 

[Statorama]

You are back on top my friend.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Any of you guys going to the Quran burning?

Just when I think I've taken it to the highest level of crazy, someone has to top me.

In a matter of hours they killed more people than were killed in the crusades.

What, you think it was a tie?There's no way you know how many people died in the crusades. I can find a website with the actual names of the people that died on 9/11. Bazinga.

Making jokes about the number of dead on 9/11 in order to continue your shtick filled conservative postings here on the board is pretty low IMO

 

[The_Man]

The other day I heard a conservative talk show host, Mike Gallagher, complain that "there is no other country in the world that would allow this (the Mosque.)" He was apparently trying to point out how crazy we were. I agree with him; I don't think another country would allow this. But doesn't that show how wonderful this country is? No other place reveres freedom of speech, and freedom of religion as much as we do. I am a firm believer in American exceptionalism; I think this is the greatest country on Earth, and I think the fact that we're going to allow a mosque to be built even here only proves that to be true. You might not like the people that are doing this, or their reason for doing it, perhaps, but you should celebrate that they can do it. I have to add that I find it ironic that so many conservatives constantly complain that liberals don't believe in the greatness of America; yet, when they get upset about a certain issue (like this one or illegal immigration) they are quite willing to point to other countries as an example of how we should be behaving. Who cares if Russia wouldn't allow a mosque in this situation? Who cares if Mexico has tight southern borders, and is cruel to those who try to pass through them? We are not these countries, and we should be very proud of that.

very

 

[Statorama]

Making jokes about the number of dead on 9/11 in order to continue your shtick filled conservative postings here on the board is pretty low IMO

If I worded it improperly, I apologize. Certainly didn't mean it as a joke, because it's one of the worst days of my life. I meant to highlight the fact to Moops that a significant number of people died that day.I wish I could get over it as easily as some on this board can. I can't shake it man, it still upsets me the same as it did that day.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Making jokes about the number of dead on 9/11 in order to continue your shtick filled conservative postings here on the board is pretty low IMO

If I worded it improperly, I apologize. Certainly didn't mean it as a joke, because it's one of the worst days of my life. I meant to highlight the fact to Moops that a significant number of people died that day.I wish I could get over it as easily as some on this board can. I can't shake it man, it still upsets me the same as it did that day.

Added flourishes like "Bazinga" gave your post an air of flippancyAnd while it was undoubtedly a horrible day, and there were many deaths, there's no way that there were fewer than 3K killed in the Crusades

 

[urbanhack]

Making jokes about the number of dead on 9/11 in order to continue your shtick filled conservative postings here on the board is pretty low IMO

If I worded it improperly, I apologize. Certainly didn't mean it as a joke, because it's one of the worst days of my life. I meant to highlight the fact to Moops that a significant number of people died that day.I wish I could get over it as easily as some on this board can. I can't shake it man, it still upsets me the same as it did that day.

Yes...we can sure see that it does.

 

[Balance]

I have to admit, I'm just being a poor sport about the whole thing. The muslims won that day.

Pathetic.

Bin Laden kicked us in the nuts and we haven't got back up yet.

 

[Statorama]

Making jokes about the number of dead on 9/11 in order to continue your shtick filled conservative postings here on the board is pretty low IMO

If I worded it improperly, I apologize. Certainly didn't mean it as a joke, because it's one of the worst days of my life. I meant to highlight the fact to Moops that a significant number of people died that day.I wish I could get over it as easily as some on this board can. I can't shake it man, it still upsets me the same as it did that day.

Yes...we can sure see that it does.

Whatever dude. My apology was sincere. My feelings about that day are genuine. I wasn't even trying to be flippant like the line in the Hangover about the Holocaust ("I didn't know they gave out rings there").I truly no-schtick apologize if I offended anyone with that statement. It wasn't even my fake intent to make light of it.Sometimes when I'm in full shock jock mode I don't realize when I'm being insensitive.

 

[Nick Vermeil]

In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue, and they were turned down. In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies, and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center....Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that," - mayor Mike Bloomberg

 

[Statorama]

Is anyone arguing that the government should step in and stop them from building it there? It seems like a lot of articles are fixated on that, and I really haven't heard anyone arguing that point.

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Is anyone arguing that the government should step in and stop them from building it there? It seems like a lot of articles are fixated on that, and I really haven't heard anyone arguing that point.

Yes. All of those who have shown up to protest and argue in front of the city council, landmarks board etc. to vote against it.

 

[Statorama]

Is anyone arguing that the government should step in and stop them from building it there? It seems like a lot of articles are fixated on that, and I really haven't heard anyone arguing that point.

Yes. All of those who have shown up to protest and argue in front of the city council, landmarks board etc. to vote against it.

that's a shame, because I'm sure if you polled most of those people they'd say they are for a smaller government.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Is anyone arguing that the government should step in and stop them from building it there?

So in the last two-three years, you somehow missed that folks opposed to this were trying to stop it by utilizing the New York City Department of City Planning and the Downtown Development Corporation and Community Board 1 and the Landmarks Preservation Committee?That's like saying you were unaware Favre had received any backlash over the last few years.

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Is anyone arguing that the government should step in and stop them from building it there?

So in the last two-three years, you somehow missed that folks opposed to this were trying to stop it by utilizing the New York City Department of City Planning and the Downtown Development Corporation and Community Board 1 and the Landmarks Preservation Committee?That's like saying you were unaware Favre had received any backlash over the last few years.

New York’s Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio has also spoken out against plans to build a mosque near ground zero. At a Landmarks Commission meeting Lazio asked that the site be landmarked to stymie the mosque’s construction. Lazio has also demanded an investigation into the mosque’s financing.

Stat, you know that "Smaller Government" is a nonsense political phrase like "Death Panels," right? What would people who call for small government cut? Nothing important to them, that's for sure.

 

[timschochet]

The Anti-Defamation League has come out against the center. This depresses me, to say the least. Usually the ADL is on the right side of these sorts of issues. For them to adopt the populist viewpoint here is, IMO, a betrayal of the core of their beliefs.

Tim, did you read their statement or are you just going on sound bites??Seems pretty well thought out to me:"We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths - to build community centers and houses of worship. We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel - and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001. The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values. These questions deserve a response, and we hope those backing the project will be transparent and forthcoming. But regardless of how they respond, the issue at stake is a broader one. Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right. "

The statement is certainly couched in reasonable terms, which only makes it worse IMO. The central argument, that we shouldn't do this because it will cause the victims of 9/11 pain, is terrible reasoning. It assumes that these victims believe that the Islamic religion caused 9/11 to occur rather than a few fanatics- or maybe Foxman believes that himself. Whatever the case, it is a shocking statement of bigotry by the ADL, and I may never support them again because of it (I have given money to them in the past.)

 

[oneohh]

The Anti-Defamation League has come out against the center. This depresses me, to say the least. Usually the ADL is on the right side of these sorts of issues. For them to adopt the populist viewpoint here is, IMO, a betrayal of the core of their beliefs.

Tim, did you read their statement or are you just going on sound bites??Seems pretty well thought out to me:"We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths - to build community centers and houses of worship. We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel - and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001. The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values. These questions deserve a response, and we hope those backing the project will be transparent and forthcoming. But regardless of how they respond, the issue at stake is a broader one. Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right. "

The statement is certainly couched in reasonable terms, which only makes it worse IMO. The central argument, that we shouldn't do this because it will cause the victims of 9/11 pain, is terrible reasoning. It assumes that these victims believe that the Islamic religion caused 9/11 to occur rather than a few fanatics- or maybe Foxman believes that himself. Whatever the case, it is a shocking statement of bigotry by the ADL, and I may never support them again because of it (I have given money to them in the past.)

Try again. But try harder this time. HINT: you don't know what bigotry is.

 

[Statorama]

Is anyone arguing that the government should step in and stop them from building it there?

So in the last two-three years, you somehow missed that folks opposed to this were trying to stop it by utilizing the New York City Department of City Planning and the Downtown Development Corporation and Community Board 1 and the Landmarks Preservation Committee?That's like saying you were unaware Favre had received any backlash over the last few years.

I thought people were just protesting the site. Hadn't heard about making some other building a landmark.Maybe I heard about it in passing but dismissed it.Overall though, there's a big difference between trying to make another building a landmark and having a law that says no mosques can be built within a 20 mile radius of the WTC site.

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Is anyone arguing that the government should step in and stop them from building it there?

So in the last two-three years, you somehow missed that folks opposed to this were trying to stop it by utilizing the New York City Department of City Planning and the Downtown Development Corporation and Community Board 1 and the Landmarks Preservation Committee?That's like saying you were unaware Favre had received any backlash over the last few years.

I thought people were just protesting the site. Hadn't heard about making some other building a landmark.Maybe I heard about it in passing but dismissed it.

Overall though, there's a big difference between trying to make another building a landmark and having a law that says no mosques can be built within a 20 mile radius of the WTC site.

That would be the building that already houses a Mosque*, and has for many, many years. They want to flatten it and build the new proposed Mosque. *To be fair, I don't know enough about the religion to know if it is a Mosque or a prayer center. But it is there already, Muslims are already there mocking our freedom.

 

[Statorama]

Stat, you know that "Smaller Government" is a nonsense political phrase like "Death Panels," right? What would people who call for small government cut? Nothing important to them, that's for sure.

The governments size and scope has increased, and up until the Obama administration it had done so rather slowly. There's no reason it can't be incrementally decreased.Limiting the size and scope of the government requires a scalpel, not a machette. It can be done.

 

[Nick Vermeil]

Is anyone arguing that the government should step in and stop them from building it there?

So in the last two-three years, you somehow missed that folks opposed to this were trying to stop it by utilizing the New York City Department of City Planning and the Downtown Development Corporation and Community Board 1 and the Landmarks Preservation Committee?That's like saying you were unaware Favre had received any backlash over the last few years.

I thought people were just protesting the site. Hadn't heard about making some other building a landmark.Maybe I heard about it in passing but dismissed it.

Overall though, there's a big difference between trying to make another building a landmark and having a law that says no mosques can be built within a 20 mile radius of the WTC site.

That would be the building that already houses a Mosque*, and has for many, many years. They want to flatten it and build the new proposed Mosque. *To be fair, I don't know enough about the religion to know if it is a Mosque or a prayer center. But it is there already, Muslims are already there mocking our freedom.

Bump from bottom of the last page. It's an important detail I think.

 

[urbanhack]

Stat, you know that "Smaller Government" is a nonsense political phrase like "Death Panels," right? What would people who call for small government cut? Nothing important to them, that's for sure.

The governments size and scope has increased, and up until the Obama administration it had done so rather slowly.

 

[Sammy3469]

Stat, you know that "Smaller Government" is a nonsense political phrase like "Death Panels," right? What would people who call for small government cut? Nothing important to them, that's for sure.

The governments size and scope has increased, and up until the Obama administration it had done so rather slowly.